A blog about sociological issues in the media and more.

Menu

Monthly Archives: April 2013

Advertising is saturated with objectification, and in the case of the female form, many narratives of discourse, more often than not, blur the line between subject and object. In this, I believe, the contested concept of the male gaze is a contributing factor, in which narrative or imagery is constructed and framed via the male perspective. As a result of this objectification, implications of true beauty and questions of what real femininity entails are formed.

For instance, on the front page of a particular Zoo magazine, Melissa D, a British media icon, is described as having “The Best Boobs in Britain” and shown with a medium long shot of her naked body. The copy alone makes reference to ideals of capitalistic structure in that it urges its audience to strive for the best in a competitive market. Furthermore, the image objectifies the subject by serving to identify her as a pair of breasts and not much else. The subject has become nothing more than an object for the male, or female, gaze.

The representation of female femininity, in this form, serves to dehumanise and demoralise its audience, not liberate it. One could argue that modern advertising, and the normalisation of this type of representation, puts in place unrealistic expectation and pressure on the contemporary female. These impossible expectations, in return, imply failure.

Discourse can be defined as a way of seeing the world through language. Foucault states that ‘[it] defines and produces the objects of knowledge in an intelligible way while excluding other forms of reasoning as unintelligible.’ In other words, discourse creates a sense of absolute truth in its representation of life, cutting out the display of all other truths in the process. Of course, language here isn’t necessarily linked with spoken word; it can apply to non-verbal communication just as it can apply to the structure and framing of a particular narrative. Discourse, with thanks to, for example, the advent of television and the internet, is able to spread on a global scale, thus introducing the process of globalisation in the media.

Some believe that globalisation brings with it the concept of cultural imperialism. This points to the domination of one culture over all others. Regardless, others believe that globalisation can be reworded as a process of glocalisation, with reference to locally constructed influence, or hybridisation, in which cultures are merged. David Morley quotes Stuart Hall’s argument in reference to the rapid spreading of English as a global language. He writes that ‘english [has] hegemonised a variety of other languages, without being able to exclude them.’ This is a valid theory in favour of hybridisation as a process. However, I would argue that globalisation and hybridity are interconnected; one cannot function without the other and without the initial process of globalisation, a culture would have no external influence to redefine.

In turn, another important critique in regard to the positive impacts of globalisation can be referred to as cultural homogenisation; the theory that hybridisation will cause, or has caused, the imminent advent of uniformity in a global society, thus eliminating diversity of culture across the world. I would argue that this is not a sound argument to make, considering that a majority of societies do not have access or are unexposed to the globalisation and flow of westernised culture.

The ABC as an organisation under the public sector of media is, in comparison to the privatised state of Channel 7, a haven for truth and, for lack of a better explanation, real news journalism. Nonetheless, it is not devoid of sensationalism. The latest episode opens with a split screen shot of its host backed by the words RED ALERT to cover a story of government budget cuts in the guise of a crisis. This could be seen as an overstatement but in relation to Today Tonight’s reductionist structure and method, it is everything but.

Today Tonight is reductionism at its finest. Its focus is on the individual more so than any social factor, and its content sways reliance on stereotypes and right leaning discourse. The show is framed in such a way to represent, in broad terms, the Other as extremist and the white privileged public as their victim. This has never been more the case than in the latest Today Tonight coverage on Boston’s bombing fiasco. In itself, the cause has been reduced to be the fundamentalist view of an extremist group which has no bearing on the suspect in question. Today Tonight’s coverage disregards any contributing social factor and blames the individual. ABC’s 7:30 report seems to shy away from this approach.

Today Tonight, unlike the ABC’s 7:30 report, is riddled with “ahistoricism”. Again, it focuses on the here and now misinformed details of an individual and completely ignores any historical factors which may have led up to this point. In covering the ‘Boston Bombing’, ABC’s 7:30 report at least makes an attempt to gather some evidence as to why the current suspect is a suspect. Today Tonight, on the other hand, relies on sensationalist methods and face value stereotypes.

This brings us to the concept of Monocausal explanation. ABC’s 7:30 report takes into account a sociological perspective on a majority of its coverage, factoring in historical, cultural, and structural influences. Today Tonight however seems to take the opposite approach, in that one occurrence is because of one sole motive of an individual.

In broad terms, globalisation is a word used to describe growth at a global scale and emphasizes interdependence. If we’re to focus our gaze on the media, one could agree with Marshall McLuhan as he puts forward the idea of a ‘Global Village’. Through the rise of electronic media and, for example, social networking websites, a ‘Global Village’ is created. This is evident in the rise of e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and blogging platforms.

However, there are some criticisms to the claim that we now live in a world in which people are closer and more participatory in the distribution of discourses. The concept of ‘cultural imperialism’ is one that some theorists have latched on to; this is the idea that one culture is an all invasive and dominant force among all others (i.e. American culture). Regardless, I’m more inclined to subscribe to the ‘Glocalisation’ theory or ‘Hybridization’ approach, in which the globalisation of a dominant culture is appropriated, distributed, and localized according to region.

I would argue that The Biggest Loser is lifestyle television at its worst. It’s dominant discourse tells the viewer that morbid obesity is the fault of the individual and doesn’t put any emphasis on social influence. From one episode, it is obvious to see that the show strives on body shaming, sensationalism to keep the viewers emotionally attached, and extreme methods in regards to weight loss. According to Oullette and Hay, shows such as the Biggest Loser invite the viewer to ‘stage their own lifestyle intervention’ and, in return, participates in shifting the concept of a political government intervention to a ‘government of the self.’ Other discourses in this show include the idea that it is impossible to be happy if you are overweight. I find this to be an outrageously generalised claim and wouldn’t be surprised if it causes more cultural harm than good. Product placement is also extremely evident in The Biggest Loser. Products are clearly displayed throughout an episode’s duration and this works to fuel the economic culture of the show.

Ever wonder how stereotypes, narrative structures, ‘point of view’, order of events, narrative ending and hierarchy of discourses contribute to the building of a dominant ideology? This is how I would critique Ideology as a concept.

Ideology can be defined as a system of normalised ideals and morals shared by the majority of a society. However, as a concept, it is seen as a system of ideals normalised with thanks to a higher hegemony. As Karl Marx states, ideology is controlled by the ruling class and used as trick to create an illusion of fairness and harmony. While this plainly brings into question human agency and free will, an ideology is not set in stone, and therefore, one could argue, that those under power still have the ability to change it. Gramsci claims that audience awareness is evident and cultural domination is always in contention. This, if applied to the media, is a valid and positive argument to make.

O’Shaughnessy and Jane Stadler define the narrative as a ‘basic way of making sense of our experience.’ Generally speaking, we, as human beings, tend to think of all of our experiences through narrative. With the most basic of narrative structure containing a beginning, middle, and end, points of view can make a big impact on how we view the world that is presented to us. For example, if a television narrative is shown through the point of view of a woman, the dominant ideology could be one of feminism and equality. If a film narrative is shown through the point of view of a male, the dominant ideology could be one of a patriarchy. However, if the ending of this film shows a woman saving the day, or if she delivers the dominant discourse of matriarchy at some point in the film, the opposite could also be true. Through narrative, stereotypes can also be shown. For example, Hollywood, even now, very rarely has feminine protagonists as a lead subject in its films. This reinforces gender stereotypes and holds true to the belief that we, as free agents, live in a gender biased culture.

A TV narrative discussion about how the narrative structure, point(s) of view, gender relations, binary oppositions, hierarchies of discourses and ending contribute to the formation of dominant ideologies.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Seasons 1 – 7)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is riddled with a number of social issues and binary oppositions. Good versus evil is an obvious opposition, as is the hierarchy of discourses dealing with, firstly, gender roles and, secondly, stereotyping. However, the dominant ideology in this series is that girls can be powerful too. From the point of view of a number of characters, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is centred on, and framed through, Buffy herself. Over seven years, Buffy grows from a naïve girl to a powerful woman. however, in the end, Spike, a male, is the show’s hero, thus reinforcing the notion that feminism is still a necessity.